Skip to main content

UNITED AIRLINES SUED FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today sued Chicago-based global air carrier United Airlines for discriminating against a class of employees with disabilities by failing to provide job transfers to vacant positions, despite their qualifications, as a reasonable accommodation.

Lead class member Joe Boswell worked as an airline mechanic for United at the San Francisco Airport for over a decade before being diagnosed with a brain tumor, causing him to take leave and seek medical treatment. When Boswell returned to work at United, he could not be accommodated in his position as a mechanic, so he applied for a number of vacant positions for which he was qualified.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Under the statute, reasonable accommodations specifically include reassignment to a vacant position. However, instead of providing such an accommodation to Boswell, the EEOC says United violated the ADA by rejecting him for all the positions he had applied for, even though he was qualified for those jobs. Boswell was eventually placed on extended, involuntary leave by United until he retired late last year.

“The EEOC is focused on eliminating widespread disability discrimination in employment wherever we find it,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Employers in every industry should know that their failure to comply with the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement will have legal consequences.”

Boswell said, “It made me feel useless to be rejected for job after job when I knew I was qualified to do the work I was applying for. United made it clear that they didn’t want to deal with me after I became disabled. I wanted to work, but they didn’t care.”

The EEOC says in the litigation that all of the class members shared similar experiences as Boswell: they became disabled during their employment with United, could not be accommodated in their current position, and were rejected by United for a vacant position for which they qualified. Other claimants were food service workers, airplane maintenance workers, ramp workers, flight attendants, and customer service representatives.

“We anticipate that numerous employees at United locations nationwide may have a claim in this systemic case,” said EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William Tamayo. “The ADA clearly requires employers to make a reasonable accommodation when an employee can no longer perform the original job because of a disability. This requires placing disabled employees in vacant positions for which they qualify, rather than forcing them to go through an application process similar to an external applicant who never worked at the company.”

The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement (EEOC v. United Airlines, Civil No. 09-2469-PJH). The suit seeks monetary damages on behalf of the affected class of employees, a court order to require the airline to change its policies to comply with the ADA, and ensuring the class members are reassigned to work in vacant jobs for which they are qualified.

EEOC San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted, “The EEOC investigation found that Boswell’s treatment was the rule, not the exception, at United Airlines. Employees with disabilities were placed on long-term leaves of absence and/or terminated despite the fact that they were willing, qualified and able to work. Such actions ignore the language and spirit of the ADA. Employees with disabilities can remain productive members of the work force, especially if employers fully comply with their duty under the law to provide reasonable accommodations.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...